I'm a grant writer who works for nonprofit and public agencies, and I actually just finished working on an NIH proposal.
Getting NIH funding is very hard. First you have to find a program that fits the purpose. Then you have to get the application instructions. Application instructions look something like this: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-13-383.html , and those are just the instructions. [1] Assuming you can actually write a coherent narrative (this isn't easy either), or hire someone to write one, you have to gather the numerous supporting documents.
Assuming you have a complete and technically correct application, you then have to a) wait, b) compete with everyone else submitting applications, and c) hope the reviewers understand what you just submitted. It can easily take a year or more from the time you think, "Gee, I should submit an application" to signing a contract with a program officer.
It may be worth doing but alternative approaches make sense too.
[1] Application instructions are so hard to read that people on HN routinely don't recognize them as opportunities to get money. There are a bundle of related Federal programs call Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) that I used to submit to HN because potential YC applicants might be interested in SBIRs. Eventually I stopped because they rarely got any upvotes.
That seems, to me, to be within the spirit of representative democracy: for every 1 person who knows enough about X to put their money on the line, there's probably 100 people who would if they had X explained to them.
This sets up a perverse incentive: the researchers who can best pander to a layperson crowd will have the highest chance, regardless of the technical merits of their proposal (which the general public almost certainly isn't qualified to judge).
### If this vaccine candidate is so promising, why can’t you get enough funds for it from government and foundation grants?
We’ve spoken to many parties and some seem interested, but do not believe this is the best route for us at this time. The landscape is highly political, and most bodies are focused on creating a neutralizing antibody vaccine. Anytime a product completely novel and innovative enters this space, it is extremely difficult to obtain early adopter. Given the extreme toll HIV/AIDs is taking on many communities around the world, we must move swiftly. We are confident these groups will come around down the road, but we do not want to wait.
In the current landscape of investing, crowdfunding has become the vehicle for riskier investments that traditional VCs no longer make (because they don't fit 10% x $2 billion = happy LPs) and I'm sure KP knows firsthand about dealing with bio-pharma regulations.
Hats off to Immunity and YC.
It might not be the best route because while it will provide individual immunity, HIV transmission can and likely will still happen. The worst case seems to be everyone gets HIV but everyone is a controller.
(Btw, the FAQ seems to have changed since that quote: http://www.immunityproject.org/faq)
Studies have also shown that people with higher viral loads are more likely to transmit HIV to others. Lower levels of virus are thus beneficial to the individual, because they predict longer AIDS-free survival, and to overall public health, because they may reduce the rate of transmission. Some HIV controllers are able to maintain levels of virus that are so low that they are termed “undetectable,” these individuals have been described in the literature as elite controllers or elite suppressors.
Are they saying they can't get access to patients for clinical trials? Sick people probably wouldn't like being called "early adopters".